HC Deb 10 June 1997 vol 295 cc992-1002
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 2, leave out from `to' to 'fees' in line 3 and insert `direct a school to refrain from making or postpone or reduce an increase in'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (d).

No. 13, page 3, line 44, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.

No. 14, page 3, line 46, leave out 'two years' and insert `one year'.

No. 26, in clause 5, clause 5, page 5, line 35. leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Lidington

Amendment No. 35 would replace the power provided under clause 3 for the Secretary of State to determine the maximum fee level that schools may charge assisted places pupils with a power for him to direct schools to refrain from making the increase or … postpone or restrict the amount of the increase". As the Minister will be aware, the words in my amendment have been taken from the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995. I should like to probe the reasons why the Government have decided to provide a new power for Ministers to intervene in setting maximum fee levels, rather than relying on the regulations' sufficient safeguards against abuse of the system.

I can understand why any Government would like to establish measures to deal with abuse, and I appreciate that there are fears that perhaps one school in 1,000 might attempt to exploit the assisted places scheme or the Bill's transitional arrangements by imposing extortionate fees that are designed to milk the taxpayer rather than to provide a decent education for assisted places pupil. The need for safeguards against such abuse or fraud has been demonstrated, but the 1995 regulations already provide substantial safeguards.

Parents must apply to schools for a fee remission and supply schools with detailed information about their circumstances. The regulations give the Secretary of State power to direct that, in specific cases, parents shall not be entitled to a fee remission if he is satisfied that the parents have knowingly or recklessly furnished information for determining remission or have supplied false information.

Under the regulations, in such circumstances the Secretary of State must give parents the right to make representations before finalisation of any decision to block a fees remission. Nowhere in the Bill is a similar right to make representations offered to schools before the Secretary of State may intervene to exercise the power provided by the Bill to set a maximum fee level. I hope that the Minister will flesh out the Government's thinking on such matters.

The 1995 regulations allow the Secretary of State to specify the manner and form in which parents should make applications and declare their actual or expected income. Moreover, the Secretary of State may specify the nature of any documentary material that parties must produce in support of their case. Under section 21 of the regulations, a school is not permitted to increase fees for any pupil in the assisted places scheme without one month's written notice to the Secretary of State. The same section gives the Secretary of State powers to block or postpone such a fee increase or to restrict its amount.

Those powers seem to be sufficient to guard against any suspected abuse of the system. I therefore question why the Government believe that it is necessary to introduce a new power for the Secretary of State to go beyond blocking a fee increase which a school proposes for its reasons and to intervene in setting a maximum fee level. I do not want the House to give Ministers more powers than are absolutely necessary to intervene in the affairs of independent institutions.

I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the reassurance that I seek. If not, I hope that he will suggest ways in which the Government might attempt to amend clause 3 or clarify the matter in the regulations.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

I will address my remarks to amendment No. 12, which refers to the provision that allows the Secretary of State to discharge his obligations through the payment of a lump sum.

The purpose of the amendment is to obtain from the Government an assurance that the provision is not designed to short-change the schools that will receive such payments. Clearly, schools expect to receive their payments over time and in stages. I am somewhat puzzled that the Treasury has allowed the Government to suggest payment of a lump sum which gives no cash flow advantage. I am concerned that the lump sum may have been proposed because the Government want substantially to reduce the money that would otherwise have been paid through the staged process. The amendment's purpose is to obtain an assurance from the Government that they will not offer a substantially lesser sum than would have been paid through the staged process.

6.30 pm

We know that the ultimate purpose of the Bill is to reduce class sizes, and that the Government want to realise the money to achieve that. My hon. Friends have spoken about our belief that the figures do not add up. They do not add up to an even greater extent when one takes into account the proposition that the Government can discharge their obligation through the payment of a lump sum.

Clearly, schools will need to know the proper costs of the abolition of the assisted places programme. They will need to look at the numbers and the opportunity that they will have to fill the vacated places from other sources. They also need to take into account the costs of restructuring, possible staff redundancies, physical alterations to buildings and all the other costs that will come from the abolition of the scheme.

I hope, therefore, that the Committee will understand the Opposition's concerns. The schools' needs do not seem to fit with the proposal that the Secretary of State should be able to discharge his obligation through the payment of a lump sum. I ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance that the obligations to the schools that will be hard hit by the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be met properly. I also ask for an assurance that the Minister's desire to discharge those obligations through a lump sum does not and will not involve any lesser payment than would have been made through the staged process.

Mr. Byers

I begin by addressing the issues raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), which he raised in a most appropriate and reasonable manner. I understand his concerns. It is not the Government's intention through the Bill in any way adversely to affect the independent schools that take part in the assisted places scheme at the moment by introducing the possibility of a lump sum arrangement.

I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we want to proceed on the basis of an agreement with the individual school when considering the introduction of a lump sum payment. We do not wish to impose such a proposal on an individual school, but we believe that there may be circumstances when it is in the interests of both the taxpayer and the individual school to introduce a lump sum payment.

For example, as the scheme is being wound down, the numbers attending a particular school may be reduced to such a level that the administrative costs for an individual school may outweigh the benefits of the income that it receives from the Government. In those circumstances, it may be in the interests of both the taxpayer and the individual school to seek a lump sum payment.

I give the shadow Minister an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to impose such a solution on an individual school. We would wish to proceed on the basis of an agreement. Only when such an understanding was arrived at would we want to use the lump sum payment provisions.

On amendment No. 35, I can genuinely understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). We do not want to introduce a new system that fundamentally alters the present arrangements. Our difficulty is that, as a result of provisions elsewhere in the Bill, the participation arrangements and the participation contracts which would cover the issues dealt with by the hon. Gentleman will no longer be with us. As the participation agreements are no longer there, we have to find a new procedure to deal with the issues that would normally have been covered by such agreements.

The provisions merely reflect the arrangements that operated under the previous Government. We do not wish to change in any dramatic way the provisions that apply under existing regulations. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the existing provisions, specifically section 480(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996, give a degree of flexibility to the arrangements. We wish to see that flexibility in the Bill.

Flexibility is necessary. It was interesting that, in moving amendment No. 35, the hon. Gentleman specifically addressed the need for provisions to deal with fees escalating. In some cases, fees in the independent sector go down, so we need flexibility in the funding arrangements to reflect changes that may take place. The provisions in clause 3 continue the existing arrangements and give the flexibility to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not the Government's intention to intervene directly in these matters as long as we can secure value for taxpayers' money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees on the necessity of achieving that.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about representations being made. We have sympathy with that approach and we do not want to disturb the existing arrangements whereby representations can be made in the way that the hon. Gentleman outlined. I hope that I have been able to assure Conservative Members about our intentions in clause 3, and I hope that they will reconsider the necessity of pressing the amendment.

Mr. Lidington

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was not only courteous and informative, but dealt helpfully with my concerns. In view of his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 25, at end insert— '(g) require local education authorities to provide information to the Secretary of State about the financial and other effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 42, leave out 'or (b)' and insert `(b) or (g)'.

No. 4, page 3, line 46, at end insert— '(7) Before making regulations under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, in respect of any area in which there is a former participating school, consult the local education authority for that area concerning the availability of alternative school places in that area and the cost that will fall to the local education authority of providing such places.'. New clause 1—Annual report to Parliament— '.-Within one year of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter for a period of no less than seven years, the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the effect of the abolition of the assisted places schemes.'.

Mr. Foster

The amendments would mean that local education authorities would be required to provide reports to the Secretary of State on the effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme, including the financial implications. They would also require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament during the seven years of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme in order to detail the impact of the Bill.

The whole Committee will agree that since the new Government came to power, they have introduced a large number of proposals. Indeed, in doing so, they have left a number of people fairly breathless and somewhat uncertain about whether some of the proposals are likely to deliver the goods.

Indeed, on several occasions, the House and the British people have been asked to take a rather large number of issues on trust. Yesterday, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was debating with our European partners his proposals for resolving the significant unemployment problems throughout Europe. He announced various proposals that a number of people, including the Irish Foreign Minister, subsequently described as rather thin.

Today, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced her proposals to require primary schools to introduce one hour of literacy teaching every day. Again, much has had to be taken on trust. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, the national curriculum is massively overloaded, and it will be difficult to put that proposal into practice.

Many of us are concerned that unless the Government get the whole package right, they may not be able to deliver some of their worthwhile proposals. The same applies to the Bill. The Government are introducing legislation to abolish the assisted places scheme, through which they intend to save money in order to reduce class sizes for primary school children aged five, six and seven.

As I have said on previous occasions, the Liberal Democrats entirely support the proposed abolition of the assisted places scheme. We also support the proposal to reduce class sizes. Indeed, we urge the Government to go further and reduce class sizes not just for five, six and seven-year-olds, but for all primary school children, as we believe that class sizes are crucial. However, as has been pointed out several times during the debate, many people have grave reservations as to whether the savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be sufficient to deliver the Government's promise.

On Thursday, the Minister for School Standards said: We believe that we are moving in a way that will deliver on a clear pledge that we made to the British people during the general election."— [Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 592.] Clearly, the Minister is anxious to keep that pledge and we fully understand that. However, the big question is whether the money that will be released from the assisted places scheme will enable the Government to deliver on it.

In previous speeches, I have referred to the uncertainty of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the considerable doubt expressed by the Institute of Public Finance. I have also referred to the figures that were produced on this very issue by the previous Administration in answer to parliamentary questions. Does the Minister really believe that he can deliver that pledge just by using the money from the assisted places scheme? I always believed that he did until I listened carefully to him on Thursday when he said: We have always made it clear that the pledge will be honoured at the end of the lifetime of this Parliament. By the year 2000, £100 million will be freed up from the assisted places scheme, and that will make an important contribution towards achieving our class sizes pledge."—[Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 595.] It is therefore quite clear from that that even the Minister is beginning to doubt whether the money that will be released will be sufficient to achieve what he wants.

Mr. Byers

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a Parliament normally lasts five years. I do not know whether he needs one of our numeracy hours, but five years will take us to 2002. We shall save £1 million by the turn of the century and the following two years will provide even more money to ensure that we can deliver on our class sizes pledge.

Mr. Foster

If I need a numeracy hour, the Minister certainly does, too. He has just told the House that his proposals will save only £1 million. I am sure that he meant to say £100 million. Never mind, I shall get it right for him.

The Minister cannot deny that many people are concerned about the figures. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, perhaps she will answer a question that she was asked on Thursday: whether she and the Government are prepared to place in the Library their own estimates of the savings that will be achieved by the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the cost of meeting their pledge. After all, the details of how they plan to deliver have not yet been worked out, and are not likely to be available until the White Paper is published at the end of the month.

The Minister might also like to consider other ways of saving additional money to meet another pledge that we have not heard so much about that may also contribute to reducing class sizes. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us whether we are shortly to hear about the abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools as that would save some £12.5 million. I do not know whether she has had a chance to look at the report in The Guardian today. If she has not, I thoroughly recommend it.

6.45 pm

The abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools will be supported by Members on both sides of the House when they discover that it is now spending taxpayers money on producing a booklet called "Media Advice Notes for Schools". As The Guardian points out, the advice brings to mind spoof hints to foreign visitors, such as: don't wait to be served in a British pub—you're expected to help yourself;". Some of it is quite amazing. It begins: Contact with your local media is invaluable … Journalists do not generally appreciate large drinks or heavy lunches—but they may well accept an invitation to lunch in the school canteen. If that is the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools, I suspect that the Government would do well to abolish it quickly and save a bit of extra money to help provide the funding that they will need to deliver on their pledge on class sizes.

On Second Reading, I made it clear that we are not all convinced that the sums add up, but we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. We hope that they will be able to produce the document to which I referred and place it in the Library as quickly as possible. We also believe that, in order to keep track of what the Government are doing and whether they are living up to their pledge, it is vital that local education authorities report annually to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State reports to Parliament. That is the import of the amendments and I hope that they will be supported by the Government and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Ms Estelle Morris

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has raised some interesting points. I share his concern about accountability and the House having every opportunity to monitor what the Government are doing and to make sure that we are working towards achieving our clear targets.

It is indeed our intention to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 by the end of this Parliament—2002. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I look forward to his encouragement and support in our progress towards achieving that aim.

We accept that reports should be made to the House on an annual basis, on policies and financial plans. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is already included in the Department's annual report. In that sense the amendments and the new clauses are unnecessary.

I can also give him further assurances—

Mr. Byers

Not too many.

Ms Morris

—but not too many, as my hon. Friend says—that we are not seeking to avoid our responsibility to answer to the House for our actions and to make sure that we keep the pledges that we made to the electorate. I therefore assure him that we shall make arrangements to include in the annual report a section that specifically deals with the progress being made in the phasing out of assisted places and our work toward reducing class sizes.

Turning to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, local authorities already provide annual returns to the Government and much of that information will take into account any changes arising from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will accept the assurances in the spirit in which they were given. We want to move towards our goal. We have no wish to avoid being answerable to the House for either our policies or our financial needs.

Mr. Don Foster

The Under-Secretary is clearly about to finish her speech, but I think that the House would be interested in answers to the two other questions. Will she place a report in the Library as soon as possible detailing the Government's estimate of the cost of reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds; and what plans does she have for the abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools for England?

Ms Morris

The Funding Agency for Schools for England is not a proper matter for debate either under this group of amendments or the Bill. We shall be addressing those matters in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to a debate on whatever is announced.

We have made available all the financial information that we are obliged to make available under consideration of the Bill. Our financial plans and policies will be made available in the annual report. Having given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will accept them and withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Foster

Unfortunately, although I am very tempted by the Under-Secretary's assurances, I cannot accept her suggestion to withdraw the amendment. I shall explain clearly why I am not prepared to do so. I asked very simply whether she was prepared to place a detailed analysis of the Government's figures on the likely cost of the reduction of class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, but her answer was that they have provided all the information that they are required to provide.

We know that the amount of financial information that has been made available in respect of the Bill is very limited and does not answer many of the questions raised. The fear must therefore be that the section of the annual report to which the Under-Secretary referred—I am grateful to her for at least making that commitment—may provide only the bare minimum of information that the Government are required to provide. The House and the country deserve a far more detailed analysis—financial and otherwise—of a very important Government pledge. If we cannot get them to provide such analysis, it is important that the House should decide whether the commitment should be imposed on them. For that reason, I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 340.

Division No. 25] [6.52 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam) Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Keetch, Paul
Baker, Norman Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim) Kirkwood, Archy
Beith, Rt Hon A J Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Brake, Thomas Moore, Michael
Brand, Dr Peter Oaten, Mark
Breed, Colin Opik, Lembit
Burnett, John Rendel, David
Burstow, Paul Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Chidgey, David Sanders, Adrian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Cotter, Brian Thompson, William
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Tonge, Dr Jenny
Fearn, Ronnie Wallace, James
Forsythe, Clifford Webb, Steven
Foster, Don (Bath) Willis, Phil
Gorrie, Donald
Harris, Dr Evan Tellers for the Ayes:
Harvey, Nick Mr. Paul Tyler and
Heath, David (Somerton) Mr. Andrew Standell.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Ashton, Joe
Ainger, Nick Atherton, Ms Candy
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Barnes, Harry
Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale) Barron, Kevin
Battle, John Denham, John
Bayley, Hugh Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Beard, Nigel Dismore, Andrew
Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S) Dobbin, Jim
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Bennett, Andrew F Donohoe, Brian H
Benton, Joe Doran, Frank
Bermingham, Gerald Dowd, Jim
Berry, Roger Drew, David
Best, Harold Drown, Ms Julia
Blackman, Mrs Liz Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Blears, Ms Hazel Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Blizzard, Robert Edwards, Huw
Blunkett, Rt Hon David Efford, Clive
Borrow, David Ellman, Ms Louise
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Ennis, Jeff
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Etherington, Bill
Bradshaw, Ben Field, Rt Hon Frank
Brinton, Mrs Helen Fisher, Mark
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend) Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Flint, Ms Caroline
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Flynn, Paul
Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock) Follett, Ms Barbara
Burden, Richard Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Burgon, Colin Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Butler, Christine Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Byers, Stephen Foulkes, George
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Fyfe, Maria
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Galbraith, Sam
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Galloway, George
Campbell-Savours, Dale Gapes, Mike
Canavan, Dennis Gardiner, Barry
Cann, Jamie Gerrard, Neil
Caplin, Ivor Gibson, Dr Ian
Casale, Roger Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Caton, Martin Godman, Dr Norman A
Cawsey, Ian Godsrff, Roger
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Golding, Mrs Llin
Chaytor, David Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Chisholm, Malcolm Graham, Thomas
Clapham, Michael Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Grogan, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Gunnell, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Hain, Peter
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Clelland, David Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Hanson, David
Coaker, Vernon Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Coffey, Ms Ann Healey, John
Cohen, Harry Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Colman, Anthony (Putney) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Connarty, Michael Hepburn, Stephen
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Heppell, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) Hesford, Stephen
Cooper, Ms Yvette Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Corbett, Robin Hill, Keith
Corston, Ms Jean Hinchliffe, David
Cousins, Jim Hodge, Ms Margaret
Cranston, Ross Hoey, Kate
Crausby, David Home Robertson, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Hood, Jimmy
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Hoon, Geoffrey
Cunliffe, Lawrence Hope, Philip
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Hopkins, Kelvin
Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare Hoyle, Lindsay
Darvill, Keith Hughes, Ms Beverley (StretfordA Urmston)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Davidson, Ian Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Humble, Mrs Joan
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Hurst, Alan
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Hutton, John
Dawson, Hilton Iddon, Brian
Dean, Ms Janet Illsley, Eric
Ingram, Adam Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd) Mounttord, Ms Kali
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough) Mudie, George
Jamieson, David Mullin, Chris
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth) Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W) Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Johnson, Ms Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield) Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark) O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Olner, Bill
Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW) Organ, Mrs Diana
Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Palmer, Dr Nick
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) Pearson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) Perham, Ms Linda
Jowell, Ms Tessa Pickthall, Colin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Pike, Peter L
Keeble, Ms Sally Plaskitt, James
Keen, Alan (Feltham) Pollard, Kerry
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford) Pond, Chris
Kemp, Fraser Pope, Greg
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Pound, Stephen
Khabra, Piara S Powell, Sir Raymond
Kidney, David Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
King, Andy (Rugby) Prosser, Gwyn
King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green) Purchase, Ken
Kingham, Tessa Quinn, Lawrie
Kumar, Dr Ashok Rammell, Bill
Lawrence, Ms Jackie Rapson, Syd
Laxton, Bob Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Lepper, David Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Leslie, Christopher Robertson, Rt Hon George
Levitt, Tom(Hamilton S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley) Rogers, Allan
Liddell, Mrs Helen Rooker, Jeff
Linton, Martin Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Livingstone, Ken Rowlands, Ted
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) Roy, Frank
McAllion, John Ruane, Chris
McAvoy, Thomas Ruddock, Ms Joan
McCabe, Stephen Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris Salter, Martin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) Savidge, Malcolm
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain Sawford, Phil
Maodonald, Calum Sedgemore, Brian
McDonnell, John Shaw, Jonathan
McFall, John Sheerman, Barry
McGuire, Mrs Anne Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McIsaac, Ms Shona Shipley, Ms Debra
McMaster, Gordon Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McNulty, Tony Singh, Marsha
MacShane, Denis Skinner, Dennis
Mactaggart, Fiona Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
McWalter, Tony Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
McWilliam, John Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mallaber, Ms Judy Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)
Mandelson, Peter Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Marek, Dr John Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Soley, Clive
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Southworth, Ms Helen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Squire, Ms Rachel
Martlew, Eric Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Maxton, John Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Michael, Alun Stinchcombe, Paul
Milburn, Alan Stoate, Dr Howard
Miller, Andrew Stott, Roger
Mitchell, Austin Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Moffatt, Laura Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Moonie, Dr Lewis Stringer, Graham
Moran, Ms Margaret Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) Whitehead, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics) Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Timms, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Todd, Mark Wills, Michael
Touhig, Don Wilson, Brian
Trickett, Jon Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Truswell, Paul Wise, Audrey
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) Wood, Mike
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown) Woolas, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) Worthington, Tony
Twigg, Derek (Halton) Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)
Walley, Ms Joan Wyatt, Derek
Ward, Ms Claire
Wareing, Robert N Tellers for the Noes:
Watts, David Mr. Clive Betts and
White, Brian Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to